LWC Accessibility Guidance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'read-only advisory tool — does not modify the org' and adds behavioral details about the optional parameters (componentName for context, checklistOnly to return only checklist items). This adds useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't describe the output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (two sentences plus parameter lines), with the core purpose stated first and supporting details following. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple advisory tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, scope, and parameter effects. It doesn't specify the exact output format, but that is less critical for a guidance tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description repeats the schema descriptions almost verbatim, adding minimal new meaning (e.g., 'for context'). The schema carries the parameter documentation burden, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('guidance and a checklist for LWC accessibility best practices') and scope (ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation, focus management, screen reader support). It is distinct from sibling tools that create or modify LWC components.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly frames the tool as a read-only advisory tool ('does not modify the org'), making its context clear. However, it does not mention alternative tools or state when to prefer this over other LWC-related tools, though it is unique among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.